Juror B29 Did Not Say Zimmerman ‘Got Away with Murder’

ABC News selectively edited their interview with Juror B29 to give a false impression of what she said.

Yesterday, I took an ABC News report of what happened on their morning show and commented on it as if it were the truth in a posting titled “Zimmerman Juror Says He ‘Got Away With Murder.'” I was not alone. Slate’s William Saletan reveals the real story (“Did George Zimmerman Get Away With Murder? The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true.“).

The reports are based on an ABC News interview with Juror B29, the sole nonwhite juror. She has identified herself only by her first name, Maddy. She’s been framed as the woman who was bullied out of voting to convict Zimmerman. But that’s not true. She stands by the verdict. She yielded to the evidence and the law, not to bullying. She thinks Zimmerman was morally culpable but not legally guilty. And she wants us to distinguish between this trial and larger questions of race and justice.

ABC News hasn’t posted a full unedited video or transcript of the interview. The video that has been broadcast—on World News Tonight, Nightline, and Good Morning America—has been cut and spliced in different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear continuous. So beware what you’re seeing. But the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented. Here are the key points.

1. The phrase “got away with murder” was put in her mouth.Nightlineshows ABC interviewer Robin Roberts asking Maddy: “Some people have said, ‘George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you respond to those people who say that?’ ” Maddy appears to reply promptly and confidently: “George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.” But that’s not quite how the exchange happened. In the unedited video, Roberts’ question is longer, with words that have been trimmed from the Nightline version, and Maddy pauses twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it. “… George Zimmerman … That’s—George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.”

You have to watch her, not just read her words, to pick up her meaning. As she struggles to answer, she looks as though she’s trying to reconcile the sentiment that’s been quoted to her—that Zimmerman “got away with murder”—with her own perspective. So she repeats the quote and adds words of her own, to convey what she thinks: that there’s a justice higher than the law, which Zimmerman will have to face. She thinks he’s morally culpable, not legally guilty.

2. She stands by the verdict. ABC’s online story about the interview ends with Maddy asking, “Did I go the right way? Did I go the wrong way?” But that’s not the whole quote. In the unedited video, she continues: “I know I went the right way, because by the law and the way it was followed is the way I went. But if I would have used my heart, I probably would have [gone for] a hung jury.” In another clip, she draws the same distinction: “I stand by the decision because of the law. If I stand by the decision because of my heart, he would have been guilty.” At one point, she says that “the evidence shows he’s guilty.” Roberts presses her: “He’s guilty of?” Maddy answers: “Killing Trayvon Martin. But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty.” That’s the distinction she’s trying to draw here: Killing is one thing. Murder or manslaughter is another.

3. She thinks the case should never have gone to trial. According to ABC News, when Roberts asked “whether the case should have gone to trial,” Maddy answered, “I don’t think so. … I felt like this was a publicity stunt.”

There’s quite a bit more in Saletan’s analysis, which I’ve already quoted generously. The bottom line is that ABC News exploited “the only minority of the Zimmerman jury,” attempted to take advantage of someone not accustomed to being on television or otherwise expressing herself publicly, and then selectively edited the tape when they were unsuccessful in getting the story they wanted. Other outlets, including “the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other newspapers” were duped along with me.

This is truly shameful conduct on the part of a news division once home to giants like John Cameron Swayze, Frank Reynolds, Harry Reasoner, David Brinkley, and Peter Jennings. Yes, it’s “Good Morning America” and not the nightly news and there’s a lot more competition nowadays. The line between news and entertainment has been blurred virtually beyond recognition and, again, that’s even more so on the morning shows. But blatantly lying to their audience and making this poor woman look like an idiot in order to pump the ratings for a day is beyond the pale.

Comments

… as I suspected.
It is a measure of how deeply the left is invested in the meme of the sainthood of Trevon Martin, that the press… always willing to go to bat for the left… was willing to go with a fake story.
My hat is off to you, James, for having the courage in posting this, but somehow I suspect the regulars in here aren’t going to like it much.

Zimmerman’s suit against NBC for their deceptive editing of the 911 call is still pending, and legal experts say that it has a hell of a good chance of succeeding. One would think that ABC would at least wait until that suit was settled before they pulled exactly the same thing.

But that wouldn’t help preserve the narrative.

Not surprisingly, The New Republic tried much the same thing. What is surprising, though, is that they actually corrected their lieserrors in relatively short order. Admittedly, it took being busted and mocked repeatedly, and several truly half-assed attempts to fix things, butt they fixed their lieserrors.

Oh, and Dr. Joyner: I gave you plenty of grief over your “Zimmerman prior to his decision to get out of his truck and pursue him on foot with his gun drawn,” but I also laud you for actually bringing up this story.

You are a racist piece of sh!t. You’re thrilled that an innocent black kid is dead. You did a little happy dance and imagined yourself as another George Zimmerman pumping a bullet into another Skittles-armed black kid. So seriously, before we all have to vomit, shut up. I don’t want to speak for Joyner, but I’m about 99% sure he also wishes you’d shut up. For actual human beings this is a hideous tragedy that makes us all sad. For you this is all a party. So do us all a favor and crawl off and die you disgusting human being.

This is “part and parcel” to the so called called news that we are getting now a days, a far cry from what we used to get from Conkrite, Brinkley, and Severeid. These news networks and their associated talk shows are nothing more than carefully controlled propaganda arms dishing out stuff that is being swallowed hook, line, and sinker by a gullible public. We got a completely different, objective account of this whole affair from start to finish from our local stations and papers. The citizens need to turn off the propoganda networks that are controlled by the government and others.

I really don’t see how this rises to the same level as what NBC did. When I saw the original interview, my impression (and quite a few others, judging from the comments here) was that she felt like the state never had the evidence to prove Zimmerman guilty of murder under the law but that in her heart she felt he was responsible. There may have been too much emphasis on the “get away with murder” quote but any intelligent person watching the interview knew damn well what she meant.

It is a measure of how deeply the left is invested in the meme of the sainthood of Trevon Martin

Are you seriously suggesting that because a black teenager got shot by an idiot with a cell phone, a Buick and a gun, that the left thinks that kid is a saint?

Quite the opposite dude – I’m sure the kid had problems like any other teenager, maybe even serious ones. Maybe he would have ended up in jail. Does not matter – still can’t kill him.

To your point, it is actually the right/NRA wing who are singing the praises of Mr. Zimmerman for keeping the dream alive – treating a black kid the way his kin have been treated since being brought to this continent on slave ships.

It’s disgusting, and while I won’t go as far as the esteemed Mr. Reynolds calling for years of famine and pestilence in your life, I do regret that there remain folks who still think this is okay, and I long for the day they no longer pollute our world with their hatred.

@Tony W: The only time I recall “singing Zimmerman’s praises” was after he helped rescue people from a car crash. The rest of the time I — and a lot of others — said that Zimmerman made poor choices, but apparently acted within the letter of the law. And, therefore, should not only not have been convicted, but not charged.

Not because he didn’t do anything wrong, but because there wasn’t sufficient evidence to justify criminal charges, let alone convict.

The hyperbole has been almost exclusively on the Hang Zimmerman crowd. And when I say “hyperbole,” I mean willful ignorance, fabrication, and outright lying.

@beth: There may have been too much emphasis on the “get away with murder” quote but any intelligent person watching the interview knew damn well what she meant.

This is the mainstream media, its target audience is not the “intelligent person”. The interview was edited to push the “narrative”. It is good that it has been outed but of little value. Even many so-called intelligent, or perhaps just excessively schooled, individuals still push many false “facts” about this case they’ve picked up from the “narrative”.

Vaughan told Breitbart’s Brandon Darby on video that she was being “sarcastic” with that message, but she apparently did not tell that to the Chronicle’s photographer when she posed for the photo with Zimmerman supporters standing in the background. That indicates malicious intent on the part of Vaughan to falsely smear Zimmerman supporters as racist. Nowhere on the sign is any indication Vaughan’s message was “sarcastic.”

@michael reynolds: Michael, again, I don’t know Eric, but was that level of reply really necessary? I’m starting to get a picture of you as someone who screams “racist” when you don’t like what someone’s saying. That indicates that you don’t take the discussion seriously, and that you don’t take racism seriously. As with the other guy you swore at recently, if you’d point me to something he said that merits that abuse, I’ll understand (although I still think it’s not much of a way to conduct yourself in a conversation).

I just can’t live in this headspace where one can’t bring themselves to label the killing of an innocent kid “murder” or even “manslaughter” and at the same time get all righteously indignant when some “selective editing” happens on TV.

Once again, the nutters try to change the pertinent subject. Focus on the media instead of the state laws that are enabling murders and that are applied selectively.

Anywhoos, tear down the teevee talking heads all you like. The left has had no use for them for decades. Seems the Big Three play both left and right provocateurs, whatever will grab the most eyeballs, while Fox is all-wingnut all the time (although Chris Wallace has shown glimmers of independent brain activity).

As for this article, the time for taking network news at its word is over. This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the reporters shouted at the woman who just gave birth to nine children “say that you’re on cloud nine!”. That’s not reporting. And the excuse that this was part of a morning show doesn’t fly. Network news is integrated.

@James Pearce: I’m not defending him. I’m asking. Michael did the same thing to someone else (yesterday, I think), and when I asked if the person was actually racist I didn’t get much of a reply. I’m not looking to defend racists or excuse bullies.

@Pinky: These network news channels are in total decline. I think that many people have seen through the manipulation, propaganda, and controlled delivery.
They have also began mixing news as entertainment. The “debates” are a good example: scripted, pre-planned, directed, outcome already decided.
The main purpose of the news media today is to control what people think.

Okay, so yesterday JJ posted the original article with the strong suggestion that this woman was an idiot for saying that Zimmerman got away with murder even though she voted to acquit.

Just about everyone here who doesn’t continually dream of having Z’s dick in their mouth pointed out the obvious truth that what she meant was that morally he was culpable, but the law didn’t allow for conviction.

Now comes the shocking news that ABC — oh my stars and garters!!!! — actually edited the interview, and what she meant all along was that Z was morally culpable but not legally so.

And now all the Z fanboys are screaming about how evil the press is. And JJ is now moaning that he was “duped.”

FWIW, I don’t watch any TV news and so saw this in NYTimes or on blogs but came away with exactly the reading James is promoting: she felt jury had no choice but to find him legally innocent but that he was morally culpable and she felt (hoped) he would have to answer to God for that.

I sense a need for a bit of encouragement. This somewhat crass and quickly uncovered bit of progressive manipulation is no real reason to alter your morally superior course. Keep grasping, guys. I’m almost quite sure that there are other “Zimmerman is a bad, bad man.” straws still out there. And you haven’t even delved more than a bit into how many angels were dancing on the young and noble Trayvon’s head.

Then again, there was that Austrian-speaking doctor back in old Vienna of a century or so ago who came up with the idea that sometimes people don’t really understand what it is that’s motivating their behavior. Freud, or some such, was the moniker he went by, but who really knows.

@Tyrell: I wouldn’t go that far. I think the greatest vice of the mainstream press is laziness, not dishonesty. They push their biases, but more than anything they just want to go back to the days when they could get decent December bonus checks after twelve months of paraphrasing ACLU press releases as news. Researching a legal story is a pain, and the budget won’t let us higher one of those cute lawyer girls from Court TV, so let’s just boost our ratings with an out-of-context quote.

TV News in the Cronkite and in the Frank Reynolds Era seemed to be better because it was the “Dark Age” that Conservatives usually describes as the time where people had no “choice of news”. Since the networks were more profitable they could afford to keep correspondents and bureaus all over the world. Networks did not need to seek the lower common denominator, basically because there was fewer choices.

@anjin-san: I looked at some of the links. He clearly likes to push buttons, but I didn’t see anything definitive on him being a racist. But I don’t find coyness interesting either. I know exactly what it means when he calls Sharpton MSNBC’s “house nigger”, but it’s also unnecessarily provocative.

If you don’t think that things like “Obama is Jimmy Carter in blackface”, “Obama is a house ni**er”, and “Democratic plantation” are racist, well, that tells us something about you. Of course your “urban attire” comment from the other day was a pretty big clue.

Florack like to do something know as “dropping N’s”. He knows that it will generate traffic for his blog from a certain type of person, and I suspect he gets a cheap thrill from it.

I have a simple test for determining if a comment is racist. Could Florack walk up to a random group of black guys and repeat the crap he says on his blog without danger of getting his ass kicked? We will never know, of course. He is the type of person that only shoots of his mouth while hiding behind a computer.

So it’s outrageous that ABC edited “… George Zimmerman … That’s—George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.” Down to “George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.” ?

So in the unedited version she sees Zimmerman as morally culpable, but innocent under the law, and she stands by the jury having so decided.

I went back and read the comments to your post yesterday. Most of the commenters heard in her edited comments what you now say is apparent only in today’s unedited version. Example pylon, “That’s not what she said. She said she thought he did commit murder (which is fine – it’s a raw belief). She also essentially said the state didn’t prove its case to the criminal law standard.” You were the odd man out, James, saying she thought “Zimmerman “got away with murder” while acknowledging that he didn’t actually commit murder.”

isn’t that what “X got away with murder” always means? If they were legally guilty they wouldn’t have gotten away with what happened and if they were not morally culable it wouldn’t be murder that happend…

it isn’t enough to simply obey the law. You must also obey the unwritten rules of political correctness Unqualified, untrained private citizens should probably refrain from arming themselves and playing cop.

@Jenos Idanian #13: “And the message I’m getting here is that it isn’t enough to simply obey the law. You must also obey the unwritten rules of political correctness and the Hierarchy of Races when it comes to victimhood. ”

Yes, that mysterious, obscure, unwritten law that says you shouldn’t murder children. And if you do, and if you’re able to get away with it because you’ve conveniently murdered the only person who can contradict your story, then some people will still not like you, will still not approve of your actions, and may even — gasp!!!!! — say mean things about you on the internets.

Oh, those darn politically corrent liebrals who make everything so hard for you…

I saw the edited version just before reading this and the take away message I got from her was the same as what you are pulling from the unedited version. She thinks he is morally culpable, thus her initial vote for murder 2, but when it came down to it she didn’t think the state proved him legally culpable. The editing doesn’t seem to have changed her message materially.

…If you don’t think that things like “Obama is Jimmy Carter in blackface”, “Obama is a house ni**er”, and “Democratic plantation”…

See, I asked for examples, and you finally gave them. Thanks. I guess if you cry “wolf” often enough, sometimes there’s a wolf. But considering how casually people on this site toss around charges of racism, my first assumption is always going to be that there’s no wolf.

Personally, I don’t care about race. I find people who do pretty disgusting. I don’t know if Eric is a racist, but he’s playing the same goading game as the people he complains about. He’s a white Al Sharpton. It’s not only offensive, it’s boring.

@michael reynolds: so anyone who speaks against the actions of any black person is racist? You do recognize that in itself is racist on your part, right?
oh, and lets call this as it is… if the racial roles were reversed, youd be cheering, Reynolds. The fact is, i dont give a damn what color someone is whereas it seems the first crutch you lean on.
Dry up.

Don’t know what he thought of the bloody corpses of gradeschool children murdered with bullets shot from guns. I stopped reading posts that display his mug.
I can only suspect he wants armed guards paid with taxpayers (government) money or teachers (agents of the government) to be armed.

@Tony W: No, Tony… because he was black and killed by a Hispanic. relabeled white guy, they try to make him out for his sainthood robes, in spite of his questionable history. Doesn’t matter to most shedding croc tears over this case , that (insert various number here) of black on black murders occurred in supposedly gun free Chicago, alone, that same week, right?

@ernieyeball
I want ALL adults working in such places armed.
I think we can demonstrated why easily enough with a parallel.
You know why rich women in furs get attacked by muggers more often than bikers wearing leather?

Sounds like you have come to terms with the fact that “internet crank” is pretty much what your life has boiled down to. Have at it. If you work hard, you might even surpass the mind-numbing stupidity of your recent “Wecome to hope and change” comment…

@anjin-san: Hey An jin….
something you don’t know…. the “jimmy Carter in Blackface” wasn’t mine, but Davids, though I supported it…. mostly because its true, but also because I heard the same comment from a couple of black coworkers who are friends of mine.

oh, and lets call this as it is… if the racial roles were reversed, youd be cheering, Reynolds. The fact is, i dont give a damn what color someone is whereas it seems the first crutch you lean on. Dry up.

Of course this case was about race – Martin set this whole tragic affair in motion because he thought Martin was ‘suspicious’ and it was completely based on race.

If the roles were reversed and Martin had been following Zimmerman, and Martin killed Zimmerman, I’m guessing that the police would not have accepted an explanation of self-defense and released Martin without conducting an investigation. Ultimately, Martin would be in jail serving time.

what tees anjin off about those lines is they are undeniably true. and nothing particularly racist about a damned one of them… and he knows it.

Maybe arguably possibly not racist in some context? Could be. Coyly pretending to be racist and exploiting liberals in exactly the sad way they exploit matters of race? Definitely. The future belongs to the people who move past racisl thinking. That’s not the Democratic Party, but it sure isn’t you.

I have a simple test for determining if a comment is racist. Could Florack walk up to a random group of black guys and repeat the crap he says on his blog without danger of getting his ass kicked? …

Few of the black folks I have known would have kicked his ass. They may not have liked what he said, but they are law abiding folks. After he was gone, they may say they would have kicked his ass, but I have heard this from people of all colors. There people and places where he may get his ass kicked, but those are not race specific.

This is used by racists, ignorant bigots, and white liberals to cover words and actions that would otherwise be offensive. This may not be applicable to you, but for many of the people reading this, it is.

Just because you work with somebody does not make them your friend. You may go to lunch and drinks after work, but this is still within the workplace environment. You interact with your friend in a non-workplace environment.

You, your friend, and wives go to dinner on Friday night, You and your friend go out drinking on Saturday. You and your friends watch the game at somebody’s house on Sunday. You send birthday cards to your friends children, and your friend send you their children’s graduation announcements. You invite your friends to your barbeques, and they do likewise.

Black folks, this applies to you also. If you have never been inside your white friend’s house, you are their “black friend”, and it does not matter how much anti-racist crap they say. Actually, white liberals have a higher tolerance for black folks, but two black families is usually their limit.

@wr: Just about everyone here who doesn’t continually dream of having Z’s dick in their mouth pointed out the obvious truth that what she meant was that morally he was culpable, but the law didn’t allow for conviction.

Keep grasping, guys. I’m almost quite sure that there are other “Zimmerman is a bad, bad man.” straws still out there. And you haven’t even delved more than a bit into how many angels were dancing on the young and noble Trayvon’s head.

Will you and your ilk still be gloating when Zimmerman loses a civil trial?

The future belongs to the people who move past racisl thinking. That’s not the Democratic Party…

Well than the future must belong to very few people, as that’s not the Republican Party either…

Meanwhile, it’s rather amusing that anyone would blame this on some sort of liberal conspiracy…the real problem is that network news divisions are beholden to the corporations that own them, corporations that could give a rat’s ass about real news but certainly care much more about the bottom line…Paddy Chayefsky was so prescient…

“There’s quite a bit more in Saletan’s analysis, which I’ve already quoted generously. The bottom line is that ABC News exploited “the only minority of the Zimmerman jury,” attempted to take advantage of someone not accustomed to being on television or otherwise expressing herself publicly, and then selectively edited the tape when they were unsuccessful in getting the story they wanted. Other outlets, including “the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other newspapers” were duped along with me.
This is truly shameful conduct on the part of a news division once home to giants like John Cameron Swayze, Frank Reynolds, Harry Reasoner, David Brinkley, and Peter Jennings.”

Bravo, Bravo – I’ve been very critical of this portal’s decision to swing left in recent years, so it is refreshing to see you see call out this interview for what it was: A sham of a spectacle and a weak attempt to push ABC’s agenda on the rest of us. You can see Robin Roberts shamefully try to jam her ideology and words into this poor woman’s face, gleeful smirk and all. And kudos to Slate for seeing this sham for what it was also.

That’s what ABC gets when 99.99% of the people they put on the air adhere to the same groupthink: A ruse of an interview from what was once a network that presented the news unfettered, rather than attempt to force everyone to buy into their agenda. Their left wing ideology isn’t doing so well these days anyway as Obama bumbles his way through a second term and as his ObamaCare train wreck implodes and comes under fierce attack from unions and other normally sympathetic sources that help get him elected.

“Quite the opposite dude – I’m sure the kid had problems like any other teenager, maybe even serious ones. Maybe he would have ended up in jail. Does not matter – still can’t kill him.”

The only people that really knew the young man are his family and friends. We all know teenagers do bad things but I will not judge this young man. What I do know is that if you sneak up and sucker punch somebody, and start punching them and bash their head into the concrete, the person being beaten has a right to kill him to save himself using any measure of common sense and law. Calling someone a “cracker” and then sucker punching them means all bets are off.

I don’t think of it as a conspiracy. It’s just that when you spend time with people with the same political views, you get used to it. You don’t challenge each other’s assumptions. That’s true in any workplace. And if it were just about money, why is it that there are no right-wing Dan Rathers, except for one network? Why is there one (I guess now zero) conservative gals on The View? People who oppose gay marriage have TV’s too – where was the anti gay marriage coverage? The newspaper industry is struggling – where were the LAT reporters who wanted the Koch brothers to buy their paper?

The only people that really knew the young man are his family and friends. We all know teenagers do bad things but I will not judge this young man. What I do know is that if you sneak up and sucker punch somebody, and start punching them and bash their head into the concrete, the person being beaten has a right to kill him to save himself using any measure of common sense and law. Calling someone a “cracker” and then sucker punching them means all bets are off.

More hilarity from the usual suspect…speaking of what people really know, only two people really know what happened that night, one of whom was shot dead and the other who has it in his best interests to push the above narrative about what supposedly happened, so before you lecture about what people really know, perhaps you should follow your own words…oh, and speaking of what it means that all bets are off, perhaps that same sterling logic can be applied to calling someone part of “these a@@holes” who “always get away” as well as profiling someone…

I don’t think of it as a conspiracy. It’s just that when you spend time with people with the same political views, you get used to it. You don’t challenge each other’s assumptions. That’s true in any workplace.

Fair enough…it’s just a shame that said workplaces seem to include a majority of state legislatures as well as Congress…

And if it were just about money…

I never claimed it was just about money, but money certainly seems to be playing a larger role than ideology…

@An Interested Party: Every workplace, every club, every website where there’s unanimity on a particular matter (or the ones who disagree don’t speak up). Probably, most families too. The group makes assumptions they don’t even notice, and often get into trouble because of it. It’d be crazy to think this doesn’t happen in the press.

@An Interested Party: And if they were motivated by money, why are the media losing money hand over fist on their bad business plan while alienating half the country? (Then again, the broadcast networks haven’t made a sound money decision in 15 years….)

“More hilarity from the usual suspect…speaking of what people really know, only two people really know what happened that night, one of whom was shot dead and the other who has it in his best interests to push the above narrative about what supposedly happened, so before you lecture about what people really know, perhaps you should follow your own words…”

Another far left crank who cannot accept the verdict. Here’s what we know for sure: After weeks of testimony and after evaluating hundreds of pieces of evidence, a jury rendered a verdict that an hispanic neighborhood watch captain, perhaps spooked by burglaries in the neighborhood in recent months, justifiably shot a black young man in a tragic confluence of circumstances. Sorry the race baiters and race hustlers are out of luck on this one. They need to find another incident to feed their grievance agenda. No matter how much they try to paint the shooter as white, the shooter was a brown skinned hispanic.

What I do know is that if you sneak up and sucker punch somebody, and start punching them and bash their head into the concrete,

What you don’t know is if this actually happened. Given the superficial nature of the lacerations to the back of Zimmermann’s head, its almost certain that there was no bashing of the head onto concrete.

Zimmermann lost any claim to that title when he decided Neighborhood Watch’s rules did not apply to him. If he had acted like a neighborhood watch captain, Martin would be alive and we would not be having this discussion.

Given the superficial nature of the lacerations to the back of Zimmermann’s head, its almost certain that there was no bashing of the head onto concrete.

It’s a lost cause, bud. Trayvon Martin is still dead. George Zimmerman is still free and soaking up right-wing charity. (He just got $12,000 from some gun group in MN to buy a new gun, this in addition to the almost quarter million he got from wingnut donations prior to his trial.)

None of these Zimmerman supporters will ever accept that a kid was killed unnecessarily. They are too invested in their own ideology and feeble prejudices. You will never convince them otherwise.

Such trenchant commentary which, of course, does nothing to address my points…once again, the only two people who really know what happened that night are Trayvon Martin (shot dead) and George Zimmerman (who is obviously extremely motivated to tell a story that favors him)…none of that has anything to do with “race hustlers” or “race baiters” or a “grievance agenda” or the ethnicity of Zimmerman…you certainly seem to want to paint all of this as some sort of win against all of those groups you don’t like…perhaps that is all that matters to you…Lord knows you need some kind of victory after all the times you have been proven spectacularly wrong around here…

And if it were just about money, why is it that there are no right-wing Dan Rathers, except for one network?

There is a reason that Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings dominated the ratings during most of the time when Dan Rather was on the CBS Evening News. TV News do not steer left, they steer bland. They try to present a soft and blend newscast that offends no one. It´s like music on the radio. Advertisers do not want anything that might resemble political opinion, because they don´t want to annoy or offend their consumers.

Sure, there are lots of people that thinks that TV news is liberal, but they are people that thinks that everything, including my dog, is liberal.

I’m trying to fathom a mind that would see this as a moment of triumph.

Not so hard to fathom when you remember that the idea is “George Zimmerman must be innocent or the liberals will win.” All consideration of Trayvon Martin as a human being is secondary to defeating “the leftist media narrative.”

@al-Ameda: if you’ve come to that conclusion, you perhaps are unaware of his support for Obama, that he dated a black girl in high school and a few other points. Clearly, such info runs afoul of your preconceptions.

So now FOX can say: “See, even the one black on the jury believes Zimmerman is not guilty in the eyes on the law” They can point out how what she speaking about was separation of church and state and just how important it is, and that propaganda by the liberal media is ruining this country, dividing us, just like President Obama. This revelation of theirs would seem comically, however, reports say they are the number one watched media outlet for “news” while two studies have shown those who view FOX for “news” are actually less informed than those who don’t actively seek out the news and on the whole, they are basically uninformed about the new in general and believe lies more than truth. Along with this, FOX loves their yearly “War on Christmas” all the supposed Jesus haters have created, and in 2003, FOX went to the Supreme Court to get the legal right to lie and still call it “news” even if the information could be harmful.

On a side note, you gotta love the articles that involve both race and guns – that’s when smooth jazz, Florack, and various others pull out of lurker mode and join Jenos in reminding us all why the Tea/Republican party is so out of touch with mainstream America.

Spend some time at the shopping mall sometime soon – America is a lot browner than you think.

@al-Ameda: if you’ve come to that conclusion, you perhaps are unaware of his support for Obama, that he dated a black girl in high school and a few other points. Clearly, such info runs afoul of your preconceptions.

I guess that begs the question: Why then did he profile Martin as suspicious based on race? Zimmerman instigated the entire tragedy by playing police instead of exercising good judgment. He’s extremely lucky there were virtually no accounts (other than his own statements to police) of what happened – just his version.

“On a side note, you gotta love the articles that involve both race and guns – that’s when smooth jazz, Florack, and various others pull out of lurker mode and join Jenos in reminding us all why the Tea/Republican party is so out of touch with mainstream America.Spend some time at the shopping mall sometime soon – America is a lot browner than you think.”

LOL, Since when did a tragic confluence of events in Florida involving 2 minorities (an Hispanic and an African American), that resulted in a death in a case involving self defense become a microcosm of America. I have news for you: George Zimmerman is browner that a lof of people that call themselves minorities in this country. You far left zealots that hang out on this board really need to get a life. Even this latest juror said race wasn’t a factor, and the extraordinary circumstances set the stage for mistaken identity given the 6+ or whatever number of burglaries in the recent past.

Even the race baiters & race hustlers like Sharpton, Holder, Jealous, NAACP et al know that the jig is up on this one: You can go so far with the race baiting when the monster in this story mentored black kids, dated black women before, has an hispanic mother, and mistakenly thought the kid was a potential burglar through the prism of similar & recent burglaries in the neighborhood.

I think you all should get off this Trayvon bandwagon and direct your energies toward arguing the benefits of this ObamaCare disaster that is barrelling down the train tracks. Even the unions who elected Obama are pissed that this ObamaCare monstrosity is about to destroy their way of life. If enough union members get pissed, you could be looking at a complete wipeout in the 2014 elections, and Obama can spend the last 2 years as a irrelevant lame duck preparing to slink away as his disastrous presidency comes to a close.

Even the unions who elected Obama are pissed that this ObamaCare monstrosity is about to destroy their way of life. If enough union members get pissed, you could be looking at a complete wipeout in the 2014 elections, and Obama can spend the last 2 years as a irrelevant lame duck preparing to slink away as his disastrous presidency comes to a close.

Republicans have been working hard to destroy unions so I’m surprised that you’d think it was a bad thing that unions might be unhappy with Obama. Go figure.

@al-Ameda: Oh, FFS. If you were wr, I could understand ignorance. With you, it’s willful.

1) Zimmerman, while on the way to the store and NOT on neighborhood watch patrol, spotted Martin — who fit the profile of a group of burglars who’ve been plaguing his neighborhood. And he fit the profile for age, race, sex, apparel, and conduct.

2) Zimmerman is, indeed, very lucky — the story you think he made up was consistent with A) Florida’s self-defense laws; B) all the physical evidence; C) the 911 call he made before he chose to commit murder; and D) the testimony of the witnesses he couldn’t have known were watching. Considering that you’ve called him stupid on numerous accounts, he was either incredibly lucky or he’s secretly a diabolical genius. If he’d gotten one little detail wrong, then his whole story could have unraveled.

1) Zimmerman, while on the way to the store and NOT on neighborhood watch patrol, spotted Martin — who fit the profile of a group of burglars who’ve been plaguing his neighborhood. And he fit the profile for age, race, sex, apparel, and conduct.

So, naturally he decided to play cop and make the situation worse.

If he’d gotten one little detail wrong, then his whole story could have unraveled.

A weak and sloppy police investigation, and without any contradicting testimony – I’m not sure how his story could have unraveled. He’s lucky he did this in Florida, and he’s lucky there were no witnesses contradict his version, and in the end, his version is the only version that mattered at the trial.

Besides the NBC editing, ABC has the problem of the video that somehow had to have not one but two logos, that managed to cover up Zimmerman’s head wounds when he was shown being brought to the station.

Not in the least.
it was all about Martins ACTIONS. Remember the 911 tape. HIS RACE HAD NADA TO DO WITH IT.

It was all about the fact that Zimmerman’s version was the only version to reach the court room. Martin’s race had everything to do with this – if Martin was not Black he’s not being followed by a cop-wannabee. It’s that simple.

@Elvis J: Didn’t you hear bro? Zimmerman got off. You can do your own “police” work these days…shoot to kill and walk as long as you say were are afraid. Go round up the perps yourself. Take some friends that are packing with you.

I think calling Treyvon Martin an innocent kid is rather presumptuous as well as assuming that the whole fight was solely instigated by George Zimmerman. We can all debate whether or not George should have stayed in the car, as I am sure George might be asking himself as well, but that in of its self is not illegal. It was in essence a stupid decision, that lead to a fight with a young man, who was by far a better fighter. This is the only evidence that anyone has, the rest of what is said about that night is pure speculation by those that will believe what they choose. Making a stupid decision does not take away one’s right to life preservation. I think that the jury had only one reasonable outcome and that was to find Zimmerman not guilty. The media has long been on the side of Martin painting him as a sweet little kid, but he was 17, hardly a little kid. Martin wasn’t on trial so his innocence wasn’t either. All we has was Zimmerman’s side of the story, and thanks to prosecutors, we were not allowed to know anything about Martin.

There was no sworn evidence from Zimmerman, so I saying we even had Zimmerman’s side of the story is tenuous. We had hearsay evidence of what he said while not under oath. I realize this isn’tthe actual evidentiary rule, but IMO, if the defence can use video of Zimmerman’s story as direct evidence of his version of events, he should have to take the stand and be cross-examined on that story.

The whole difference between unsworn previous statements and courtroom evidence (or even depositions) is the ability to cross-examine.

@Nate: I think calling Treyvon Martin an innocent kid is rather presumptuous…

Yeah. Presumtion of innocence. What a concept. I guess it’s only for the living on trial in a United States Courtroom. See one G. Zimmerman who was and still is innocent.
The dead be damned. (And believe me it tickles my horns!)

…thanks to prosecutors, we were not allowed to know anything about Martin.

That’s right. The bullets shot from George Zimmerman’s gun did not have anything to do with why Treyvon Martin was not on the witness stand.

@Pinky: how to argue against the racism inherrent in the Dems without taking them on their own ground? even you will have to admit showing them a mirror image of themselves a quite effective tool… and i suppose what unhinges them so completely when i do it is that they recognize it as their own stuff being relected back at them.

@michael reynolds: You sir are garbage. You spew the same type of hatred dialog that you claim your against. Then you justify the right by which you say it, again something your against when it’s someone else. Any child can cry out emotional accusations, which you clearly are. Wishing someone is dead that you haven’t even met, make you worse than those you claim are worse than you. If YOUR narrative on the Travon is correct, then at least Zimmerman had a talk with the guy. You on the other hand spew death threats to someone you don’t even know in a comment string. Hmmmmm, only racist, hateful, murdersome, and severe anger management needed bigots do that. Clowns like you hit yourself in the head with the hammer to see how good it feels to stop, and then turn around and sue the hammer company for not putting a warning sign on the hammer to not hit your head, and then call the NAACP because the hammer starts with an artist name of MC Hammer, and your bonehead logic probably thinks that is racist. So because I don’t know you, I’m not a racist, or a hateful person which you are, and you definately don’t trivial matters like facts, transcripts, evidence and trutgh. Do us all a favor and get back to your Jerry Springer marathon, keep blaming Bush for your miserable lack of happiness and leave the thinking to those 14 and up. Your a child in a grown up body, thinking the words “I believe” mean facts since it came out of your head. Twit!! I suppose your going to be the next american idol, and you hate capitalism, but you buy a lottery ticket.